MTA Pretends 'Unlimited' Means 90

from the math-is-hard dept

We've seen how broadband providers and mobile carriers have regularly been confused by the term unlimited, and now it appears that the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) is going down the same road. To deal with its budget crunch the MTA is planning to say that its unlimited ride cards are actually quite limited. A monthly "unlimited" card will get you 90 rides. A weekly one will get you 21 rides. Basically, "unlimited" means 3 rides per day. As someone who spends a lot of time in NY, and frequently gets unlimited weekly cards, I know I use it more than 21 times in a week, especially when I'm bouncing around from meeting to meeting during a day. The MTA might want to be careful, of course. Companies have been fined for falsely stating unlimited when things are not actually unlimited.

unlimited?

At my gym, they've introduced these 'rehydration stations'.
So they tried to have me pay for unlimited* access to those.
Of course, 'unlimited' means after getting 1 litre, The station locks me out for the next hour.

I politely explained notunlimited=limited!=unlimited. That and that they're not getting my fingerprint (which is needed to use said fancy water fountains).

Kinda like the Australian ISP Exetel; "We offer a metered "peak" period and an unlimited "off-peak" period (unless of course you download too much then you will be asked to find another ISP or be disconnected, but we wont actually tell you what "too much" is, we'll just let you live in fear).

But you're using MTA for *business* travel.

Significantly undermines your case. Your business travel expenses are deductible. You're saying that you want the citizens of NY to underwrite unlimited *business* use of MTA. -- It may even be that such use is explicitly *prohibited*. Better check that before filing suit. Big distinction in law for public roads being free to citizens, but *not* for commercial uses, same applies here.

"Unlimited" may be a bad choice of word -- find another meaning "beyond the range of normal but with an upper limit" -- but I think it's adequately true for *non-business* users.

Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.

This makes no sense at all. Just because an expense is deductible doesn't mean you're not supposed to try and save money. Are you saying you can't use the subway for "business" travel? So are you saying that if it's business travel you can only take taxis and help clog up the streets and burn gas?

What's next? Business travelers can't drink from a public water fountain because bottled water expenses are deductible?

Re: Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.

I'm saying what I've written. There *is* a distinction between public and commercial uses of public roads, and likely in New York includes subways too. I was just struck by our host's blithe assumption that he can -- after *some* point -- impose costs on the citizens of NY.

I think the legal objection is likely. Suppose that a business bought a single card and let a number of employees use it for "unlimited" travel. Is that not cheating the public?

Re: Re: Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.

Suppose that a business bought a single card and let a number of employees use it for "unlimited" travel. Is that not cheating the public?

Only if the purchase contract says only the purchaser can use it.
Cheating the public? Please. If you don't want people doing unlimited travel, don't sell them the means to do unlimited travel. It's not that hard a concept.

Re: Re: Re: Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.

Our host's objection is to the word "unlimited", when in fact the MTA *isn't* selling the "means to do unlimited travel", only what they consider a reasonable amount. I'm surprised that business types don't get the practical point that it's not going to *be* unlimited because no business can take on unlimited costs. -- This isn't like network traffic, this actually requires *fuel* and other items to be used up.

Re: Re: Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.

Why should "the citizens of NY" underwrite anyone's travel methods? Government is the only entity that can lose money on a "business" and have people think that is ok. The NY MTA is projecting a $400 Million budget shortfall plus another $135 Million in reduced revenue from less riders. That's HALF A BILLION DOLLARS for the subway system in ONE CITY.

The MTA should sell the subway to a private firm who can make it into a profitable business.

The problem isn't the MTA breaking an implicit contract with the customers who have the unlimited ride card, the problem is government operating this at all.

Re: Re: Re: Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.

no. The MTA is not a business. It is a semi-private government agency. It also manages the largest public transportation network in the world. It's not supposed to be profitable, only stable enough to invest in infrastructure improvements. Every public transportation privatization has ended in total failure. private companies have no interest in improving the (very expensive) infrastructure, only in--as you pointed out--profits. If the MTA were privatized we'd only have 3 subway lines all in Manhattan, and the fare would be $5 at least.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.

infrastructure improvements....
the system is so shitty its just patched here and there
but at least make the subways CLEAN.
places like hong kong have 24 hour cleaning people on standby
and they acutally know how to clean up garbage, not just push it back and forth
mta should just fire everyone except people who makes an effort actually care about running the subway system

Re: Re: Re: Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.

"Travelling alesmen use the roads under the same T's and C's as pensioners."

Er... I'll assume "salesmen", and that "pensioners" means citizens on their private business. -- Citizens *own* the roads, and pay for their upkeep. Corporations do *not* own the roads, yet, and when they do, there'll be such gouging as will convert mis-guided "capitalists".

But your specific flaw is that when travel expense is deducted from taxes, then it *is* commercial travel, and on a different basis in *legalities* (as our host mentioned for possibility) than by any "natural" citizen on his private affairs. Traveling sales people (or truckers) do *not* have an inherent right to use *our* roads. -- Just because it's not *practical* to collect all possible fees and fares on this basis doesn't mean it's a trivial point.

Your use of "unlimited" on the visit puts you with those who want a price break, that's all. -- Always happens that the "subsidized" class demands *more*. It's time to quit subsidizing you bums, just proves that the mismanagement mentioned elsewhere is in charging the people who should *most* appreciate the service too little.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.

But your specific flaw is that when travel expense is deducted from taxes, then it *is* commercial travel, and on a different basis in *legalities* (as our host mentioned for possibility) than by any "natural" citizen on his private affairs.

Can you specify exactly what you're talking about here? Are you saying someone driving for business purposes has to abide by different rules? If so, what are they? If not, what are you saying? Links might be helpful. I am just not understanding your point.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.

I'll be brief. In the US, citizens own the roads, and as tenants in common have an inherent "right to travel" over that land in "the ordinary conveyance of the day", that is, a right to drive, regardless that states enforce a driver's *license* at gunpoint. Supreme Court, 1928, I think, based on common law all the way back, as without the right to travel, you could be literally starved on your own land; automobiles don't change that basic right, any more than a horse does. Don't have a link for you, but can be found if you know what you're looking for. -- You'll likely find a nest of vipers in human form called lawyers who insist that it ain't so. But they're minions of the system and profit from it; their own licenses to practice law are for commercial purposes, and traffic infractions are a lucrative field for them. -- Perhaps you'll be amazed to learn that "traffic infractions are not a crime".

Commercial uses are entirely different because of *money* made, but I'm not strong on the reasons and don't entirely support it. But, used to be common for farm trucks to have "Not For Hire" signs on them to denote that farmers have a *right* to use the public roads.

SO, if not specific in answer, you *will* be able to find a distinction between a citizen's and commercial driving. But the gov't has basic premises so confused these days that most think that you *must* get a piece of plastic from the gov't to show that you have *permission* to use land (roads) that you own as tenant in common to go about the ordinary matters necessary for life and enjoyment. It ain't so.

Your first part I'm ok with - we have a right to use public lands (with some limitations). It's the second part I'm not clear on, about business-related travel being different. If you want to explain further or provide citations I'm listening. If not, whatever, it was a tangent anyway.

Re: Re: Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.

Yeah but that applies to non-business travel as well. The purchase contract says the card is non-transferable, whether for business travel or otherwise.

There are some roads that say "no commercial traffic" (like the Merrit Pkwy), but that's about it. The streets in NY are shared by commercial traffic, non-commercial traffic, and even the occasional terrorist.

Re: Are you on crack?

MTA policy isn't the whole of the law, just the specifics.

Just because it's not practical to put license plates on commercial travelers as is done on commercial *vehicles* doesn't change that businesses are using public property for commercial gain, and that distinction on public roads is *quite* well established in Supreme Court rulings.

This is just trollishly weak

- I have no idea why you're trying to analogize driving to riding the MTA. Do you think I have to wear a seatbelt on the train, too?

- Even if there were such an applicable analogy, Mike's 'business use' still wouldn't be analogous. He doesn't run an ice cream truck or a shipping company. Or do you think, say, freelance photographers or contract programmers need commercial plates?

- If you know of some law forbidding commercial travelers, or in some way treating them differently, on the MTA, post it. If you don't, admit you're just making crap up.

- Even if you could find such a rule, there's still no reason to concentrate on commercial use - many millions of rides per day are for people commuting to work, or going shopping, or heading to clubs, or... any of the many things people do in the city. Some months I certainly exceed 90 trips/month, and it sucks that, after mismanaging their finances for decades (including keeping multiple sets of books) they're trying to extract more while they're cutting service and giving management raises all the time.

@ Jamie Re: This is just trollishly weak

I'm not analogizing *driving* to riding the MTA, I'm saying that *commercial* use of public roads is pretty much same case as *business* travel on MTA.

If anyone's travel on the MTA is deducted as a business expense, then it's definitely commercial use, and moreover, an indirect but real subsidy by taxpayers, precisely because the travel is for profit, but deducted, meaning the actual fare is at a reduced rate.

I'm not making up that *business* travelers use the MTA, and that's the only important point. Since you admit that you're an above average user, then your goal is to beat the system at least on the individual fare rate. Fact is *you* are trying to extract more out of taxpayers than you're paying for. Has *nothing* to do with mismanagement as such; in fact, they're simply trying to "re-manage" to meet new conditions, but of course *you* who benefit from subsidies regard that as an attempt to rob you. -- You literally want a Free Ride!

Re: @ Jamie Re: This is just trollishly weak

Since you admit that you're an above average user, then your goal is to beat the system at least on the individual fare rate.

His goal is to spend as little as possible to meet his needs (without breaking any rules). This is both rational and ethical.

Fact is *you* are trying to extract more out of taxpayers than you're paying for.

It is not his responsibility to ensure he's paying enough to give sufficient return to the taxpayers. The MTA needs to charge him enough money. Don't point the finger at the customer who is accepting the deal offered to him.

*you* who benefit from subsidies regard that as an attempt to rob you.

What is your definition of subsidy? And where did anyone say anything about robbery? The complaint is about false advertising. If the MTA had just said "we're not offering unlimited tickets anymore" plenty of people would have complained, but it really would not have been much of a story.

You literally want a Free Ride!

How do you figure he wants a free ride when he's paying for his ride? Why are you making stuff up?

Re: Re: Re: @ Jamie Re: This is just trollishly weak

Second, the MTA said you were buying an "unlimited" pass. By definition that is unlimited rides for a fixed price. Why wouldn't you expect to get what they said you'd get?

And it doesn't tend towards free as there are a fixed number of rides in any given day. Even if you spent all day riding, you'd be pretty far off from infinite as you suggest with your "tends toward" wording.

You're cliche isn't exactly applicaple, and you're one of the biggest dolts to troll this site. You can keep arguing about this all you want, but it's pretty obvious you are just plain wrong. If you're unable to see that, then you really are an idiot. If you're arguing just to troll, then, by all means keep it up.

@ Nastybutler77: I don't need your permission, but thanks.

Re: @ Nastybutler77: I don't need your permission, but thanks.

Name-calling means only that you're annoyed by an argument that you can't refute. I win by default.

You're right about one thing. I am annoyed. But not because I can't refute your lame arguement. The fact that others have already done so is why I choose not to waste further time doing so. For example:

"by nasch(profile) , Jul 15th, 2010 @ 9:22amSince you admit that you're an above average user, then your goal is to beat the system at least on the individual fare rate.

His goal is to spend as little as possible to meet his needs (without breaking any rules). This is both rational and ethical.

Fact is *you* are trying to extract more out of taxpayers than you're paying for.

It is not his responsibility to ensure he's paying enough to give sufficient return to the taxpayers. The MTA needs to charge him enough money. Don't point the finger at the customer who is accepting the deal offered to him.

*you* who benefit from subsidies regard that as an attempt to rob you.

What is your definition of subsidy? And where did anyone say anything about robbery? The complaint is about false advertising. If the MTA had just said "we're not offering unlimited tickets anymore" plenty of people would have complained, but it really would not have been much of a story."

That is just one example of many where others have tried to explain to you that you don't know what you're talking about.

The name calling is as necessary as you're repeated illogical posts. I just call 'em as I see 'em, and you're a real doozie.

It seems you're looking to "win" this arguement and you'll take it any way you can. If a default victory is what it takes to make you go away, then by all means take your "prize" and go bother some other blog.

Re: Re: Re: @ Jamie Re: This is just trollishly weak

He wants unlimited rides for a fixed price. That tends toward free.

If his number of rides tends to infinity, yes. But it doesn't.

Don't quibble about a cliche that's exactly applicable.

I'm not sure, but I think you're saying that it's exactly applicable to refer to a limit of 90 rides per month as unlimited? And pointing out that a limit of 90 rides a month is not unlimited is quibbling? Wow. I hope I misunderstood you, because that is just dumb.

@ nasch: Don't you ever run out of questions?

Or have anything but comments on other's posts? Do you have a position on the topic? Have you noticed how easy questions are? Do you think that I can't make them up too? Do you think you're so clever that your "Eliza"-like technique of paraphrasing and adding a question mark escapes my notice?

Re: @ nasch: Don't you ever run out of questions?

Yes, my position is that businesses and governments should not be permitted to lie in their advertising and marketing.

Do you think you're so clever that your "Eliza"-like technique of paraphrasing and adding a question mark escapes my notice?

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'll rephrase. Are you saying that it's exactly applicable to refer to a limit of 90 rides per month as unlimited? Are you saying that pointing out that a limit of 90 rides a month is not unlimited is quibbling? I hope not, because that's dumb. If that is not what you meant by "Don't quibble about a cliche that's exactly applicable," then please explain, because I don't understand.

Sigh

I'm saying that *commercial* use of public roads is pretty much same case as *business* travel on MTA.

And I'm saying that's absurd. You may wish there were some distinction that would make a difference here, but you haven't demonstrated that there is one. You know, like a statutory, or even MTA-initiated, rule that creates one. And even if you weren't just trolling, and actually went looking, you wouldn't be able to demonstrate a distinction based on commercial activity for charging more to ride, because it doesn't exist.

If anyone's travel on the MTA is deducted as a business expense, then it's definitely commercial use

So?

As an aside, what do you think of the passes that companies buy at reduced rates for their employees? Think there might be a subsidy for commercial gain there?

Since you admit that you're an above average user, then your goal is to beat the system at least on the individual fare rate. Fact is *you* are trying to extract more out of taxpayers than you're paying for.

In a word: Bullshit. If the MTA has problems (and it does - the people cooking the books in that case, by and large, are still in charge), it isn't because I've been happily paying the $94/mo. Fact is, the single-fare price is below cost, too, and I don't see any donation collectors, so by your definition, anyone who gets on the train for any reason at any rate is "trying to extract more out of taxpayers than [they're] paying for". And by the way: did it ever happen to occur to you that an individual buying month passes for years at a go might be... I dunno... a tax payer?

Yeah, I want them to quit raising rates. Fire the scammers that run the MTA, really clean house and see what sort of income/expense is actually in play, and come on back if the fare actually needs to change. Or if you want to talk about getting something for nothing, tax the Bridge and Tunnel crowd that sleep in NJ or NC and use NYC's services all day. Or stop sending so much of the tax base out of the city.

Re: Re: Are you on crack?

Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.

I use an unlimited metrocard for business in NYC. As assistant operations director, I have to travel all over the city to visit our stores. (on sunday I had 6 trips, and it should have been 8, but the local train wasn't running so I had to walk). Blaming visitors to the city (or out of city commuters, like Bloomberg did when he tried to make metronorth/lirr trains more expensive) misses the point. The MTA screwed up and now they're cutting service and raising prices everywhere to try to make up for their lousy budgeting.

The type of commercial use you're thinking of is like trucking. Those types of uses require additional licenses (commercial plates, not allowed on certain roads, etc.). Human travel, even if for business purposes is not part of that. Otherwise a rental car full of businessmen going to a meeting would need a commercial license.

Re: Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.

No, the type of commercial use I'm thinking of is the case our host has raised, and yours, too. -- You make a narrow point with a rental vehicle. That's somewhat a matter of they didn't catch you. Any vehicle *owned* by a business, though, is licensed commercially.

I'm just telling you "capitalists" to be consistent. You are using a public transportation system for commercial gain, which is *fine* with me, because simply not practical in the given case to *tax* you for what that service is worth to you.

But when you demand "umlimited" costs be underwritten by the public for *your* gain, you're on weak ground all around.

Re: Re: Re: Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.

I accidentally skipped the handle previously; avoiding A/Cs is my policy too. But I'm making an exception to multiple comments on one thread, too. -- Since our host provides unlimited commenting, why shouldn't I take advantage of it? Isn't that a *neat* illustration of the principle I'm arguing here?

The topical answer is: it's not unlimited, pure and simple. Our host wishes that it were, and the *word* usage is objectionable to me too, but as a practical matter, MTA just can't actually provide unlimited travel to everyone who buys one of these cards, *but* I don't therefore consider it fraud. You can rail at MTA all you want, but it's *reasonable* for them to assume, and set, an upper limit.

If you'll read all of my comments, it's a fairly cogent case on business grounds, and doesn't extend to the degree that has been implied by the rhetorical questions of those who *benefit* from the practical fact that MTA can give them a break on expenses over the individual rate -- or at least that's what I assume the advantage is to our host, and why he's complaining.

So I'll say it again: you don't get unlimited travel even on your "unlimited" card, and if your travel is for *business*, you're saying that you want a subsidy from taxpayers. -- Of course that's always a difficult point to accept if you benefit from a subsidy, no matter how keen you are on that "private enterprise", "rugged individualist", "capitalism is boss" theme, when that's just not reality, and in fact, public works can be, and generally are, public good.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.

"and the *word* usage is objectionable to me too"

I'm not objecting to there being a limit. Only that if it's advertised as Unlimited, it shouldn't have a limit. It appears you agree with me and from how I read the article, Mike was saying the same thing. Nowhere do I see him saying that they HAVE to offer an unlimited pass, only that if it isn't unlimited, then don't say it is.

Perhaps you should re-read what the article says again as the argument you bring up (which I won't get into due to my limited knowledge on the subject) is a bit off topic. The main thrust of the article (and please correct me if I'm wrong Mike) is the wordage that they use which we can agree is objectionable, not the service it offers.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.

So I'll say it again: you don't get unlimited travel even on your "unlimited" card,

Well then don't call it "unlimited" otherwise you lie.

and if your travel is for *business*, you're saying that you want a subsidy from taxpayers. -- Of course that's always a difficult point to accept if you benefit from a subsidy, no matter how keen you are on that "private enterprise", "rugged individualist", "capitalism is boss" theme, when that's just not reality, and in fact, public works can be, and generally are, public good.

All travel on the NY subway is subsidised by the taxpayer. The various special offers (unlimited travel cards etc etc) are no more subsidised than the regular ticket. They are just business schemes, designed to attract more customers, and so increase revenue overall - which should result in a reduction in public subsidy.

@nasch: He doesn't "complain"! That's just *my* conclusion.

I think it reasonably implicit in: "As someone who spends a lot of time in NY, and frequently gets unlimited weekly cards, I know I use it more than 21 times in a week". -- Therefore, if he uses it more than 21 times in a week, he'll have to pay more. See how that process works? -- Or are you doing more of your schoolmarm schtick and insisting that every sentence hastily assembled for website comments be incapable of misinterpretation by the lowest intellect?

Re: @nasch: He doesn't "complain"! That's just *my* conclusion.

The point of that statement is to indicate that 21 rides per week is not effectively unlimited. In other words, this is a very real and substantial limit on a service being billed as unlimited. If the MTA had said, for example, you're limited to 6000 rides per day (or some number nobody could possibly use), it would be stupid to complain that it's not really unlimited. This is a limit that can easily be reached by an ordinary person in the course of ordinary activites.

He used his own experience as a concrete example rather than just claiming that people will be able to reach the 21 ride limit without anything to back it up. He is not complaining about the money. If he were complaining about the money, I think there would be something in there about how it's going to cost him more, and he doesn't like that.

Mike, I don't know if you're paying attention to this, but perhaps blue would be more likely to believe you than me. Are you objecting to having to pay more when you visit NY? Or objecting to calling the service unlimited when it's not?

Or are you doing more of your schoolmarm schtick and insisting that every sentence hastily assembled for website comments be incapable of misinterpretation by the lowest intellect?

I'm kind of guessing about what you mean here. But if I read you right, I'm not saying that your comment could be misinterpreted by a stupid person. I'm saying it's incorrect.

Didn't you say something about calling names, and doesn't that mean I automatically win? Or is there a list of names that give "victory" to your "opponent", and schoolmarm isn't on it?

Re: Re: @nasch: He doesn't "complain"! That's just *my* conclusion.

Mike, I don't know if you're paying attention to this, but perhaps blue would be more likely to believe you than me. Are you objecting to having to pay more when you visit NY? Or objecting to calling the service unlimited when it's not?

As I thought was clear (and seems clear to most people), I was only objecting to the fact that they call it unlimited if it is not unlimited.

They've raised prices many times in the past few years. I've never written a post complaining about that. They're free to set the prices as they wish, or not to even offer an unlimited ride option if they don't want to (if I'm just in town for a few days, I usually get one of the "10 rides" cards instead). I don't mind paying. I mind calling it unlimited when it's not only limited, but a very low limit.

Why do you think business people using public transportation is a "Free Ride?" Do you not realize that businesses pay taxes too?

Your cognative disconnect is astounding, as you keep making the same incorrect arguement over an over despite everyone telling you you're wrong. It should be clear by now, and since it's not you're either a simpleton or a troll. So which is it?

But you're plain wrong that "(unlimited travel cards etc etc) are no more subsidised than the regular ticket"; obviously they *are* and increasingly so the more used.

It isn't obvious at all.

You seem to be wilfully ignorant of the way these systems actually work.

The MTA runs a fixed schedule that costs almost the same irrespective of how many people ride. The only variable cost is in fact the cost of ticketing - and that is actually marginally lower per ride for weekly/monthly tickets than for regular tickets.

In practice these operations then run a ticketing strategy designed to maximise revenue whilst providing consistent service for the public. The shortfall is made up by public subsidy. If the subsidy was removed the service would have to be cut - and guess what? The services that would be cut would not be the weekday, daytime services in the central region patronised by business users but the evening and weekend services to outlying areas used mainly by private travellers. The "business" services could easily survive without the subsidy - the "private" service could not.

Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.

You're saying that you want the citizens of NY to underwrite unlimited *business* use of MTA.

Wow. I said no such thing -- as pretty much everyone else here has already pointed out to you.

I just said that if you advertise it as unlimited, it should be unlimited. That's it.

I said nothing about how the MTA should be required to offer an unlimited pass or about the pricing of said pass.

It may even be that such use is explicitly *prohibited*.

Um. No. That's patently ridiculous. First of all, part of the reason *why* NY subsidizes the MTA and the subway system is because they know its widely used by people to get to work, and thus contributes *GREATLY* to the overall economic well being of New York.

Saying that it's prohibited to use an unlimited pass to travel to meetings on the subway is flat out wrong and laughable.

Everyone has pointed this out to you. That you stand by your blatantly incorrect position is weird.

A reasonable conclusion implicit in what you do say.

"You're saying that you want the citizens of NY to underwrite unlimited *business* use of MTA."

You want unlimited rides for a fixed price. Arguments against laid out elsewhere.

Here's a point that I am going to be stubborn on because it's twisting implications such as you complain of:

My quote: "It may even be that such use is explicitly *prohibited*."

Your quote: "Saying that it's prohibited to use an unlimited pass to travel to meetings on the subway is flat out wrong and laughable."

You will nowhere find me to state that. "May be" is a conjecture and while possibly laughable, can't be "flat out wrong".

I think you're being confused by all the mis-statements of my position. So here it is: MTA *can't* (and shouldn't!) provide "unlimited" travel, regardless of what the ticket says. They should change that *wording*. But to expect unlimited travel is to expect that after some point, *someone* else pays for your rides. MTA *hopes* to make money by selling fares to heavy users at reduced rates, expecting that they won't be used, but that era seems to have ended. -- I assume that the previous deal was good for you, and I think it reasonable to conclude that a bit of self-interest clouds your judgment here.

Re: A reasonable conclusion implicit in what you do say.

I'd better re-hash the "business" vs citizen distinction too. -- While MTA not care, nor do I, as to why you're going or where, and that I only *infer* you're traveling for business, it does alter the set of legalisms involved, *if* you were planning on filing suit. -- The rest on this point is expansion, probably unwise, as applies to public roads on which were all tenants in common.

Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.

> Big distinction in law for public roads being free to citizens,
> but *not* for commercial uses, same applies here.

What do you think the MTA is for? It's specifically designed for commuter use-- people who are riding it to work and back. It's not like millions of people get up every morning at the crack of dawn and pack themselves into hot, cramped trains and buses for the fun of it.

mta is an unholy money pit

the mta is a financial disaster. and it is subsidized by the citizens of not just nyc, but the whole state. exhorbitant bridge and tunnel tolls, dept of motor vehicle "fees", as well as payroll taxes specifically for the mta, from people who have never used the subway in their life, and probably never will.

Re: mta is an unholy money pit

and upstate gets more than their fair share in taxes in other ways. stop complaining unless you want to redistrict the state to better reflect the actual populations, and while you're at it stop counting NYC residents in prison as residents of the upstate districts their prisons are located in.

Re: Re: mta is an unholy money pit

Re: mta is an unholy money pit

All public transportation is a money pit. You complain about your tax money going toward the MTA, but what about the taxes paid by people living in the city that goes to the state highways? Lots of people do not own a car but are paying for you to have a road.

Over time, infrastructure that is funded by tax dollars becomes a way for the government to create jobs for it's citizens. The systems bloat and overspend and eventually collapse. Empires throughout history have done this. Eventually, it will be privatized - then it will eventually fail - then the government will take it back and rebuild it.

Look at the electric transit systems in California. Oh, sorry, GM took them over and ran them into the ground - then replaced them with buses (great plan there, by the way) - and now the Governator is trying to take transit back and use it to build jobs. The MTA is a REALLY large scale version of this - and will probably cause a lot of economic hardship, but it is not abnormal and tends to be an economic necessity.

Confused?

"We've seen how broadband providers and mobile carriers have regularly been confused by the term unlimited,..."

Yeah right. Confused is if I tell you to make a left at the light when it was actually a right because I sincerly thought it was left. If I tell you to make a left knowing full well it was right that's not confusion. That's deception.

Re: But you're using the MTA for business travel.

No, amazingly, my point is as I've written. Nothing at all from me about a special tax or out of town, that's completely your invention.

I take exception on the narrow ground that our host's travel is for business purposes and that while "unlimited" is maybe a lie, for a *business* person to demand that "unlimited" be taken literally -- when it's in his favor -- is simply not consistent with *any* business practice.

Also, the MTA is a subsidized public utility, and if he's been getting a good deal previously, well, times are different, the MTA just can't afford to *lose* money on his amount of use of the system. There are real costs to meet, indistinguishable incrementally for *one* person, but simply insupportable overall. At some point, MTA *has* to charge heavy users a bit more, and he doesn't want to shell out, really wants an "all you can eat buffet" at taxpayer expense. He can buy a monthly card and a weekly and get by, perhaps.

Re: Re: But you're using the MTA for business travel.

for a *business* person to demand that "unlimited" be taken literally -- when it's in his favor -- is simply not consistent with *any* business practice.

If we don't demand that the government doesn't lie to us, what reason do they have to stop lying to us? Are you saying it's OK for the MTA to mislead the public about its services? If not, why do you object to Mike pointing out the deception?

Re: @ nasch: Don't you ever run out of questions? #2

No, I'm saying that our host is a bit short-sighted on what he's asking.

I don't see how it's shortsighted. To me, the core of the message is at the end: "The MTA might want to be careful, of course. Companies have been fined for falsely stating unlimited when things are not actually unlimited." Maybe you're focusing on something else, but that doesn't seem short sighted to me.

I haven't. I've agreed with his point. MTA should remove the *word* but not change that those who *use* more *pay* more.

Good, then we agree about that, or at least don't disagree. I think they should remove the word, and I have no opinion on their pricing model. My first thought would be to offer a 21/week and 90/month pass, and then raise the price of the unlimited passes. Unlimited is convenient, and if it's priced right it can be a good deal for everyone. But I don't really know that much about the MTA.

Now, I've *answered* three questions. If all I get from you is *more* questions, I'll feel free to be *rude*.

It's the re-introduction wireless carrier meaning of unlimited!

In the wireless communications world the term unlimited was meant to mean that you had unlimited "access" to the network - as in you could use whenever you wanted but NOT that you could use it as MUCH as you wanted.

It's blatantly misleading to use the word unlimited in this case as well. Regardless of why you use the system which, unless you are doing something illegal, is none of anyone's effing business in the first place, even if I do claim it as a business expense.

If I paid for an unlimited pass then I should be able to use it WITHOUT LIMITS! If this costs the company money then maybe they should reconsider offering this type of pass. However, I suspect they do a fairly decent amount of business with these passes and it may turn out that NOT offering the passes would cost them even more revenue than the few extra trips some small portion of the riders might use.

If you advertise something as "unlimited" then it is logically incorrect to place a limit of any type on this item. Pick a new name for the pass: 7/21 weekly pass with 21 ride limit; 3/30 or the "33" Pass - will allow you 3 rides a day for thirty days; or the 90 Pass - 90 rides no time restraint. Once your 90 rides have occurred you need to re-up your pass.

Take your pick on what you want to call it but don't call it unlimited especially if you have no intention of honoring it.

Re: New York Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) is going down the same road. To deal with its budget crunch the MTA is planning to say that its unlimited ride cards are actually quite limited.

Straphangers.. Re: Re: New York Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) is going down the same road. To deal with its budget crunch the MTA is planning to say that its unlimited ride cards are actually quite limited.

NYC subway cars used to have leather straps for people w/o seats to hold on to-- thus riders where and still are called STRAP-hangers in NYC lexicon. today we have metal bars not leather straps ,, but the lexicon is still used.

Welcome to NYC
------------
And , again it is just a toothless MTA proposal to limit the un-limited -- very unlikely to happen. The MTA wants an uproar , so they can look nice when they do not do it.

But they are cutting back service here in NYC -- esp on late nite transit -- which as a musician who works late into the night is a pain for me

on the alleged subsidy for unlimited travel

Actually, blue, it is not the monthly travel that is unlimited, it is the number of times you can enter and exit the subway in one month. Since travel itself takes time, the amount you can travel per month cannot be infinite.

It's not altogether clear that New Yorkers are necessarily subsidizing your travel at some point. I think it would depend on the mean cost per subway stop, the number of stops you traverse, and the cost of your ticket. If you use up your 90 rides by going only one or two stops, you may actually be subsidizing riders who buy one ticket and spend all day on the subway.

I called New York MTA

I called the contact number for the New York Metro Transit Authority metro card. The girl who answered said that they are not limiting rides on the unlimited card. She said the story is not true. I hope she's right. This is the telephone line that commuters use to ask questions specifically about the MetroCard. I used the number listed on their official website: 1 212 638 7622